Oooooo! ::raises hand vigorously:: I know you didn’t direct that to me at all, but please excuse this dive into geekery—I love off-camera flash !
I use three or four cheap speedlites (Yongnuo), all manual, with built-in RF.
I have an inexpensive wireless controller ($50) that sits on top of the camera and lets me dial in all of the speedlites.
It’s a quick setup since I control the light–I set my shutter speed to my sync speed and set the aperture to a setting determined more by art than by light, usually a setting that will blur wrinkles in the backdrop but not blur the far eye. Then I dial in the flashes. Once it’s going, I can take dozens of shots freehand with limited concern for the placement of the flashes.
The thing that makes it all possible is the instant feedback given by the screen on the back of the camera, with occasional glances at the histogram. Who needs light meters these days? An additional helper is the amazing ISO we have nowadays that lets small speedlite flashes do the job at 1/16 power that would have required far heavier gear in the past.
The speedlites shoot into umbrellas, in a traditional key-light, fill-light, hair-light combo, with the fourth somewhere else if needed. I often put orange gels on one of the lights in order to provide selective warm light.
I set this up in people’s homes, with their own setting such as a christmas tree, or my backdrops, which go on an el-cheapo backdrop stand.
The whole getup takes about fifteen or twenty minutes to set up or take down.
Once or twice a year I treat myself to a new printed backdrop from these guys. When I do school photos the kids love goofing around with the different backdrops.
If you are at alls serious and do staged shots like this, think about some cheap studio lights. Alien Bees makes some good product, and you can forget about all that battery swapping, flash not firing, etc. Plus, they are much stronger than the flash guns and fire faster. Your flash guns can be accent or fill or whatever.
One thing light meters are good for is if you shoot in front of clients. It may just be me, but I don’t think clients will want to see you fiddling with settings all over the place as you dial it in. Light meters eliminate that.
I almost always do outdoor shoots. So whatever level of light there happens to be. I prefer to do shoots when the sun is fairly close to overhead.
When a client picks a place I haven’t been to before, I try to go there a few days in advance, at roughly the same time of day, to get a sense of how the angle of the sun will interact with potential backgrounds and camera angles.
The only flash I have is the built-in one. I can often get better pictures without it.
Most of the advice I’ve heard concerning outdoor portraiture is to avoid those hours when the sun is directly overhead as the light is unflattering and casts harsh shadows. Many photographers prefer the late afternoon, particularly the “golden hour” just before sunset. Mornings work too, but you have to get up early and everything’s damp
If you’re not using a fill flash, are you at least using reflectors to fill in shadows and modify the lighting?
Yeah, if I had to pick a time of day that is absolutely the worst for portraiture, or pretty much photography in general, it’s midday. Now, mind you, you can make it work for portraiture–much of the time I have no choice but trying to take nice portraits between, say, 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. In that case, the choices generally are to take advantage of shade or to position the subject such that the sun is exactly at their back. This may also involve supplemental lighting depending on the look I want to achieve.
That’s your preference? Really - most of your advice in this thread I would characterize as “bad”.
Even a person who wants casual family shots will benefit from better time selection. For example, for folks who go to Disneyland, typical advice would be to take shots early in the day, put away the camera after that, and then only bring it out again in the later afternoon. With that alone those casual family shots will be better than struggling to pull something useful out of the shots that are handicapped from midday lighting.
Alien Bees are great, but “cheap” is definitely a relative term. Yongnuo makes really solid speedlites for under $100. Buying three Alien Bees would cost more than my main camera and lens combo.
That whole meme about shooting late in the day is a perfect example of conventional wisdom gone wrong. Shooting when the sun is low in the sky is the absolute worst time of day.
#1–you’ve got long shadows all over the place, getting in the way, and actually maximizes light/shadow contrast. #2–only a complete ignoramus or else a sadistic bastard would insist that paying clients look into the sun when it’s low in the sky. #3–when the sun is low, the client cannot be comfortable, because (obviously) the camera cannot look into the sun if you want to get anything remotely resembling usable pictures.
Shooting close to the middle of the day avoids or at least minimizes all those problems. It also maximizes the number of shooting angles possible without having problems with glare.
It’s not a “meme.” It’s pretty much true. The problem with shooting midday is you get harsh shadows from overhead that create “raccoon” eyes, for one, unless you are shooting in shade. (Or using supplemental lighting or a reflector.)
The second problem is that overhead lighting is flat and boring. You’re right in that low in the sky light maximizes light/shadow contrast. That’s exactly why it’s great. It’s warm light, it’s dramatic/punchy, its directionality provides good modeling. And this is not just for your subject, but for your backgrounds, as well.
#2 - I guess I’m a sadistic bastard then. First, you don’t have them pointing exactly at the sun. You want to put them at a slight angle to it. I generally go by the shadow of the nose. I don’t want the nose shadow to overlap the eye at all. Second, the light at that time of day is more diffuse. I mean, does this couple look uncomfortable? Or her by herself? That’s all direct end-of-day sunlight. She looks pretty comfortable to me. And the nice thing about that lighting: it makes colors pop. It provides a nice catchlight in her eye. It fills in the eyesockets. And it creates three-dimensionality in the face, with a clearly defined jawbone.
#3 on your list is not obvious. Are you talking about backlighting? Of course you can shoot with the sun behind your subject/into the sun and get usable pictures, as long as you got good glass. I love backlit portraits–they have an ethereal feel to them.
I cannot think of a single professional photographer who would consider midday shooting ideal. I’m not saying there isn’t such a person, but they’d be few and few in between. If I am completely given the choice of the schedule, I cannot think of any reason why I would request a shoot between, say, 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. other than I know it’s going to be overcast that day. My ideal times for shooting start at about 2 hours before sunset (or two hours from sunset to sunrise.)
In general, a better camera will buy you better technical capabilities, not better artistry. I’m surprised this thread is on Page 2 and nobody has mentioned the Pro Tog, Cheap Camera series, where the hosts take a high-level professional photographer, give them a terrible dinky camera, and make them take professional-quality photos. And they always do.
What does better gear get you? A better sensor will get you better low-light performance, better dynamic range, and the ability to make larger prints. Better lenses will give you better sharpness, wider angles, more reach, better blurred-out backgrounds, the ability to do macro, and better low-light performance (though not all of those at the same time). Better lighting gear opens up new realms of artistic possibilities. A tripod lets you take long exposures.
So, if you’re taking pictures in broad, even daylight which you don’t plan to make posters out of, you’ll be fine with anything. If you’re trying to shoot indoor sports or astrophotography, a basic point-and-shoot won’t be able to handle it and you need better gear. If you want to be a professional portrait photographer, you need better lighting gear.
Now I’m curious. Flyer, can you show us some of these portraits that you have taken when the sun is high up in the sky, without fill flash or other lighting equipment? I’m sure it can be done, but I’m curious to see why these are preferred conditions for your shooting style.
Pros shoot early or late, for all of the reasons mentioned earlier.
The only way I would shoot someone in midday sun is if forced by the timing of an event. At that point I would be darned sure I had a good fill flash setup or if I had some helpers holding reflectors and diffusers to modify the sun–a diffuser to hold between them and the sun, and a reflecter to shine some light in the shadowed regions.
My preferred type of day for outdoor photography is an overcast day–there are no shadows and the whole sky acts as a softbox, evenly lighting everything.
If the sun is low in the sky, it doesn’t need to be in the subject’s eyes–you can shoot with the sun off to the side a bit, you can place the subject in shadow, or you can even place the sun behind them to serve as a rimlight around their hair, using a reflector or fill flash to brighten up their face.
IMHO, the OP should listen to advice given from others here and learn.
Very simply, it gives you the most flexibility. The most flexibility in angles, and the most flexibility in positions. Plus, if there’s cloud cover, there’s still enough light. I’m different from most photographers, possibly in several ways. I pay a lot of attention to backgrounds and camera angles, and I sometimes put people in unconventional poses.
You can duck underneath a tree, for a nice woodland feel, and still have plenty of light available.
It’s also much easier to play around with light and shadow. This one is from a pregnancy shoot that I did. The lady really liked it.
Those are the main examples I have up at the moment. I tend to be slow in getting pictures posted to my website.
I realize that many of you think I’m wrong. But your theory founders on the fact that my clients like what I give them. After a photoshoot, I take pains to tell people that if they don’t like the pictures for any reason, to let me know, and we’ll figure out a way to make it right. NOBODY has complained. On the contrary, I have had people contact me after they’ve viewed the pictures, to tell me how much they like them.
That doesn’t make you different–that’s photography 101 stuff right there. Add lens selection to the list to establish the relationship between foreground and background as well. Then, of course, the most important thing from a technical and creative standpoint: use of light.
There are, of course, plusses and minuses to this. Overcast is definitely more stress-free for shooting, but the creative options regarding use of light are more limited, too. For middle-of-the-day shooting, I prefer overcast, but for other times, give me the sun. While it is true that overcast lighting is soft and diffuse, the problem (for me, at least) is that it still is an overhead light source and it’s too darned even. Everything is equally lit and it’s difficult to create drama and mood through light and shadow. That said, sometimes that is what you want. Also, despite the diffusion, since the light is overhead, there is still the “racoon eye” effect, albeit much softer. Also, there’s no catchlights in the eyes to make them pop unless you either supplement with additional lighting or place the subject appropriately (near a reflective surface that will bounce light back into their eyes or under an overhang such that the light from above is blocked and the light on your subject is coming directionally.) For this reason, even if it’s overcast, I look for locations where it’s possible to block some of the overhead light. If I don’t have time constraints, I’ll pull out the lights and place them about 45 degrees to the subject to fill in those eye sockets, give a little bit of modeling to the subject, and have the catchlight in the eye. (For example, something like this.) If I don’t have the time, then I make do with what I’ve got or look for locations where I can fill in some of the shadows.
For me, the ideal light for portraits is about an hour or less from sunset or sunrise, with a thin layer of clouds diffusing the light, so we have the best of all worlds: soft light on the subject, lowered intensity, warmer color balance, and still a strong sense of directionality with a compressed dynamic range. There’s still a strong sense of light and shadow, but it’s softened and there’s better “wrap” to the light for shadow/highlight transitions in the face and body.
I was just flipping through some photos in Lightroom and realized that while the harsh shadows are gone, the illumination is not absolutely perfect.
Even warmed up, this photo still looks like the chilly Fall day that it was.
That said, it seems easier to not make egregious lighting mistakes in overcast, for me.
And that’s fine and you do want to convey a sense of time of year and environment. I wouldn’t have lit that photo, either. It also gives the photo a natural, spontaneous look. The vast majority of my overcast photos are taken sans additional lighting–it’s just that in some cases, like head & shoulder portraits, I often wish I had time to set up an additional soft light source to help with facial features. But sometimes just sticking them under a tree or similar to cut out the overhead, or to put them next to a reflective surface like a wall does the job, too.
!
